Moon v. Jordan et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Reset Deadlines (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) (ECF No. 33) is GR ANTED. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28) is DENIED as moot because it was directed at the previous Complaint. Defendants can re-file the Motion for Summary Judgment in accordance with the new deadlines. ( Discovery Completion due by 5/1/2017., Motion to Join Parties due by 2/17/2017., Dispositive Motions due by 7/1/2017.) Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 1/9/2017. (JMC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
No. 1:15-CV-167 RLW
JOHN JORDAN, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Reset Deadlines (ECF No. 31)
and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) (ECF
No. 33). This matter is fully briefed and ready for disposition.
I. MOTION TO RESET DEADLINES
In his Motion to Reset Deadlines, Plaintiff claims that he was unaware of what was
transpiring in his case for a variety of reasons. Plaintiff seeks to amend the scheduling order.
Defendants did not file an opposition to Plaintiff's Motion. The Court assumes that the parties
agreed to extend Plaintiff's deadlines. The Court extends the deadlines in this case as follows:
Initial disclosures shall be filed no later than January 18, 2017;
Motions for Joinder of Additional Parties shall be filed no later than February 17, 2017;
The Discovery deadline shall be no later than May 1, 2017;
Motions for Summary Judgment shall be filed no later than July 1, 2017;
Oppositions to Motions for Summary Judgment shall be filed no later than August 1,
Reply briefs shall be filed no later than August 15, 2017.
II. MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
A. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides "a party may amend its pleading only
with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave
when justice so requires." "Though the district court should freely give leave [to amend] when
justice so requires, Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2), plaintiffs do not enjoy 'an absolute or automatic right
to amend' a deficient ... Complaint." U S ex rel. Roop v. Hypoguard USA, Inc., 559 F.3d 818,
822 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States ex rel. Lee v. Fairview Health Sys., 413 F.3d 748, 749
(8th Cir. 2005)). "A district court may appropriately deny leave to amend 'where there are
compelling reasons "such as undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the non-moving party, or
futility of the amendment.""' Moses.com Sec., Inc. v. Comprehensive Software Sys., Inc., 406
F.3d 1052, 1065 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Hammer v. City of Osage Beach, 318 F.3d 832, 844
On June 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). (ECF No. 33). Plaintiff attached a proposed Amended
Complaint. (ECF No. 33-1). Plaintiff stated that he was unable to file his Amended Complaint
earlier because he was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution-Terre Haute, Indiana
and the staff interfered with his mail service.
As of June 6, 2017, the deadline for filing a motion to add additional parties or
amendments had past under the prior Case Management Order. Defendants claim that Plaintiff
has not shown good cause to amend the complaint. Defendants further contend that Plaintiffs
Amended Complaint restates the same allegations as his original Complaint. Finally, Defendants
note that Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint only after Defendants filed their Motion for
Summary Judgment and Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Because the Court has extended the other deadlines in this case, the Court also extends
the deadline for amending pleadings and holds that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is timely.
The Court also will deny Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as moot because it was
directed at Plaintiffs previous Complaint.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Reset Deadlines (ECF No. 31) is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED .
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 28) is DENIED as moot because it was directed at the previous Complaint. Defendants can
re-file the Motion for Summary Judgment in accordance with the new deadlines.
day of January, 2017.
RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?